Could anyone summarise the situation for me as i cannot be parched looking through all the drivel on here


( or maybe someone could just copy and paste the two or three intelligent and knowledgable posts that are probably on here)

Thats all so true, just for the record ask your chairman how much debt you have, then come back and ask about gettin a grip.

Whether or not Wrexham Village sell Wrexham FC, the mortgage is valid. It even names two of the directors of Wrexham Village just to be extra sure. There's no way the RFL can lose out on the deal regardless of what goes on with the sale or otherwise of the soccer club.

The ground is mortgaged to the RFL, and a change of ownership won't alter that.

As I understand it, the debt to HMRC was covered under a staged payments arrangement which HMRC have suddenly decided to withdraw. Hence the entire debt is now due to be paid off in one hit rather than being spread out over a period of time. Clearly that has major cash flow implications.

Sounds right as that's what happened when they refused to register Batley's players until paid Tax debt off immediately even though a payment plan was in place. So basically allowed Cru to drop tax debt and stay in SL but hoping to save face with tax office want all over clubs to pay up straightaway placing some under unnecessary financial risk... Great ain't they!

Has there actually been any confirmation of this?

It would be pretty unusual for HMRC not to honour an agreed repayment plan provided the company keeps within its terms (i.e. payment of all future liabilities as and when they fall due etc).

I think it's very convenient to blame this on HMRC (and the RFL, and Crusaders . . . ) pulling the plug on an agreed deal that Wakey had been sticking to, but I haven't read anything confirming that this is the case?

Not sure on HMRC involvement but Batley Chairman confirmed RFL forced then to pay up in lump sum or wouldn't register players.

I've only seen it refered to here

Cheers - I think I get it now.

Sir Rodney loaned the cash based on the OPP being granted - which I guess was a bridging loan until the 'developers' paid the money that they would get. This was to finalise the existing debt which was from 12 months ago and in an agreed payment plan with HMRC. In the meantime Wakie have been spending the taxmans money thinking they would be able to cover it with the developer payment and found the carpet has been pulled from under them by the Secretary of State.

Whoever has advised Wakefield on this needs shooting from a great height and then shooting again! It's shockingly bad management - regardless of the Crusaders Administration exasperating this.

If the Batley case is true, that there were unable to sign players because they owed the taxman - why has not been the case for Wakefield and Crusaders? Or is Superleague exempted from this rule?

In terms of licensing, it seems that the 'three year licence' is causing problems for Wakefield as there is uncertainty at the end of this year for their survival in Superleague. This is largley preventing investment coming in.

Unfortunately for Wakie they have had a string of things go wrong at the wrong time. You have to wonder how different things would have been if the stadium was further down the line.

Wadski mate you have hit all the nails right on the head I think with that post!

My only comment about Wakefield and people advising Wakefield over the issues, and them needing shooting, this would imply that they maybe had other choices... I don't think they did and then in that context then if that is your only option then you have to take it!

Administration seems the right way to go now (which I am sure will once more make HMRC very happy!) and if rumours are true Wakefield have several new backers interested, they can play in SL this season and see what happens.... you never know! Taking a drop would then not be the end of the world because the backer will have a debt free-club and the prospect of a new paid-for (almost) SL standard ground to move to in a couple of years. They have a new ground, a new backer for the next round of applications... you would think they could be a good bet to come back in again!

You think so ?

Administration may be a problem for them because the deal with Cala Homes is between them and the existing limited company. Should the company go out of business then 'all bets are off' with regards to Belle Vue and I suspect that they would lose their home ground. Without somewhere to play out of Administration may see them homeless. If this issue could be resolved for 2011 season then I would try to do a Crusaders before the start of the season then have half a season of SL under their belt as a new company and cause a problem to the RFL licensing committee because their situation is the same, if not better than Crusaders because of history in the top flight. This would also force the hand of potential investors and mean that they are investing in an SL club and thus keen to maintain WTW in SL rather than taking on a club without a licence in the Championship.